However, the storm cleared up and the pop sensation Taylor Swift has won the legal battle without ever having to appear in court.
Justin Baldoni withdrew subpoenas issued to Taylor Swift and her lawyers after Swift’s legal team claimed they were unjustified.
The subpoena, which sought communications between Swift’s and Blake Lively’s legal teams, had been quashed by motions filed by their respective attorneys.
What was Taylor Swift’s legal team’s response?
Taylor Swift’s lawyers slammed the move as baseless and a publicity stunt designed to drag her into controversy. They claimed it was an “unwarranted fishing expedition,” as per a report by Variety.
Blake Lively’s spokesperson claimed in a statement on Thursday that Baldoni had attempted to use Swift’s fame as a diversion from the case’s true problems.According to the spokesperson, “We are happy that Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer Parties have withdrawn their harassing subpoenas to Taylor Swift and her law firm.” “We will continue to defend any third party who is unfairly harassed or threatened in the process, and we support Taylor’s team’s efforts to suppress these inappropriate subpoenas sent to her counsel.”
Why did Justin Baldoni try to involve Taylor Swift?
Taylor Swift was mentioned in Baldoni’s lawsuit as Lively’s “megacelebrity friend” who supported her during a creative dispute.
He claimed that Swift and Reynolds, whom Lively referred to as her “dragons,” put pressure on him to comply with Lively’s script modifications.
It doesn’t seem like that specific claim has anything to do with the subpoenas that were sent to Swift and her legal team on May 8 and April 28, respectively, as per a report by Variety.
ALSO READ: Who was Uche Ojeh, husband of ‘Today’ show co-host Sheinelle Jones, who passed away at 45? How did he die?
Justin Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, filed a court filing claiming that he was instead seeking proof that Lively’s attorney had threatened to make Lively-Swift texts public unless Swift provided a statement endorsing Lively.
Freedman asserted that Swift’s attorney had documented the allegedly extortionate exchange in a letter to Lively’s attorney, which he was attempting to obtain via the subpoena.
Freedman’s accusations were deemed “unequivocally and demonstrably false” by Lively’s attorneys, who contended that the court filing was only intended to expose scandalous claims in a way that would protect them from defamation liability.
Swift and Lively’s lawyers contended that the accusations had no bearing on the defences and claims that were truly in question in the case.
Freedman stated in the court filing that since talks were in progress with Swift’s legal firm, Venable LLP, the motions to quash would probably become moot. According to reports, those discussions have led to voluntary information sharing, negating the need for the subpoenas, as per a report.
FAQs
Was Taylor Swift involved in the film or the legal proceedings?
No, Swift played no creative or professional role in the film and never appeared on set.
Why was Swift subpoenaed in the first place?
Baldoni’s lawyers claimed that someone close to Swift had information about alleged threats from Lively’s legal team, which Swift’s team denied.
Source link
[ad_3]
[ad_4]